Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:22:03.411Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How to Win a Televised Debate: Candidate Strategies and Voter Response in Germany, 1972–87

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

Peter R. Schrott  and
David J. Lanoue
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article analyses candidates' strategies in leadership debates and voters' responses to those strategies. Based on an examination of German election campaign debates since 1972, we specify a number of different debating strategies available to the candidates. The strategic choices made by each party leader are then identified through content analysis. Finally, employing aggregate-level data, regression models are used to determine whether or not the debaters' strategies influenced voters' evaluations of who won and who lost each encounter. We report three major findings: (I) ‘positive’, non-attacking debating styles generate the most favourable public evaluations; (2) voters are most attentive to candidates' discussions of the parties' and government's record rather than their discussions of individual personalities; and (3), in some cases, these effects exceed those of party identification.

Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , October 1992 , pp. 445 - 467
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See, for example, Katz, Elihu and Feldman, Jacob J. ‘The Debates in the Light of Research: A Survey of Surveys’Google Scholar, Lang, Kurt and Lang, Gladys Engel, ‘Reactions of Viewers’ both in Kraus, Sidney, ed., The Great Debates (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1962)Google Scholar; and Miller, Arthur H. and MacKuen, Michael, ‘Informing the Electorate: A National Study’, in Kraus, Sidney, ed., The Great Debates; Carter vs. Ford (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1976).Google Scholar

2 See Lanoue, David J. and Schrott, Peter R., The Joint Press Conference: The History, Impact, and Prospects of American Presidential Debates (New York: Greenwood Press, 1991), pp. 131–4.Google Scholar

3 Kraus, , ed., The Great Debates: Carter vs. Ford.Google Scholar

4 Cheney, Richard B., ‘The 1976 Presidential Debates: A Republican's Perspective’, in Ranney, Austin, ed., The Past and Future of Presidential Debates (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1979).Google Scholar

5 Kraus, , ed., The Great Debates: Carter vs. Ford.Google Scholar

6 Lesher, Stephan with Caddell, Patrick and Rafshoon, Gerald, ‘Did the Debates Help Jimmy Carter?’Google Scholar in Ranney, , ed., The Past and Future of Presidential Debates.Google Scholar

7 Katz, and Feldman, , ‘The Debates in the Light of Research’.Google Scholar

8 Key, V. O. Jr, The Responsible Electorate (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E. and Stokes, Donald E., The American Voter (New York: Wiley, 1960).Google Scholar

10 Abramowitz, Alan, ‘The Impact of a Presidential Debate on Voter Rationality’, American Journal of Political Science, 22 (1978), 680–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bishop, George F., Oldendick, Robert W. and Tuchfarber, Alfred J., ‘The Presidential Debates as a Device for Increasing the “Rationality” of Electoral Behavior’ in Bishop, G. F., Meadow, R. G. and Jackson-Beeck, M., eds, The Presidential Debates (New York: Praeger, 1978).Google Scholar

11 Meadow, Robert G. and Jackson-Beeck, Marilyn, ‘A Comparative Perspective on Presidential Debates: Issue Evolution in 1960 and 1976’Google Scholar in Bishop, , Meadow, and Jackson-Beeck, , eds, The Presidential Debates.Google Scholar

12 Miller, and Mackuen, , ‘Informing the Electorate’.Google Scholar

13 Baker, Kendall L. and Norpoth, Helmut, ‘Candidates on Television: The 1972 Electoral Debates in West Germany’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 45 (1981), 329–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Baker, Kendall L., Norpoth, Helmut and Schönbach, Klaus, ‘Die Fernsehdiskussionen der Spitzenkandidaten vorden Bundestagswahlen 1972 und 1976’, Publizistik, 26 (1981), 530–44.Google Scholar

15 Weiss, Hans-Juergen, Wahlkampf im Fernsehen: Untersuchung zur Rolle der großen Fernsehdebatten im Bundestagwahlkampf 1972 (Berlin: Verlag Volker Spiess, 1976).Google Scholar

16 Sears, David O. and Chaffee, Steven H., ‘Uses and Effects of the 1976 Debates: An Overview of Empirical Studies’Google Scholar, in Kraus, , ed., The Great Debates: Carter vs. Ford.Google Scholar

17 Kraus, , ed., The Great Debates: Carter vs. FordGoogle Scholar; Ranney, , ed., The Past and Future of Presidential Debates.Google Scholar

18 Katz, and Feldman, , ‘The Debates in the Light of Research’Google Scholar; Kraus, , The Great Debates: Carter vs. FordGoogle Scholar; Martel, Myles, Politicial Campaign Debates: Images, Strategies, and Tactics (New York and London: Longman, 1983)Google Scholar; Lanoue, David J., ‘One That Made a Difference: Cognitive Consistency, Political Knowledge, and the 1980 Presidential Debate’. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56 (1992), 168–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 New York Times, 8 10 1984.Google Scholar

20 Katz, and Feldman, , ‘The Debates in the Light of Research’.Google Scholar

21 Schrott, Peter R., ‘Electoral Consequences of “Winning” Televised Campaign Debates’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 54 (1990), 567–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 Martel, , Political Campaign Debates.Google Scholar

23 Baker, and Norpoth, , ‘Candidates on Television’Google Scholar; Schönbach, Klaus, ‘Wahlprogramme und Wahlermeinung’, Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 19 (1977), 360–407.Google Scholar

24 Baker, and Norpoth, , ‘Candidates on Television’.Google Scholar

25 Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, ‘Standardcode zur Verschlüsselung der Einstellungen zu den Politischen Parteien in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland’ (mimeo, ZUMA, Mannheim, 1976).Google Scholar

26 Schönbach, , ‘Wahlprogramme und Wählermeinung’.Google Scholar

27 Baker, and Norpoth, , ‘Candidates on Television’Google Scholar; Baker, , Norpoth, and Schönbach, , ‘Die Fernsehdiskussionen’Google Scholar; Lanoue, David J. and Schrott, Peter R., ‘Voters' Reactions to Televised Presidential Debates: Measurement of the Source and Magnitude of Opinion Change’, Political Psychology, 10 (1989), 275–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lanoue, David J. and Schrott, Peter R., ‘The Effects of Primary Season Debates’ (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, 1988).Google Scholar

28 In all content analyses, intercoder reliability coefficients ranged between 0.8 and 0.9.

29 These surveys were made available by the ICPSR (study numbers 7102, 7513, 7963), the Zentralarchiv für Empirische Sozialforschung, Universität Köln (ZA-Nr. 1275, 1276), and FORSA, Gesellschaft für Sozialforschung und statistiche Analysen, Dortmund.

30 Baker, and Norpoth, , ‘Candidates on Television’.Google Scholar

31 See, for example, Lang, Gladys Engel and Lang, Kurt, ‘The Formation of Public Opinion: Direct and Mediated Effects of the First Debate’Google Scholar in Bishop, , Meadow, and Jackson-Beeck, , eds, The Presidential Debates.Google Scholar

32 Schrott, , ‘Electoral Consequences of “Winning”’.Google Scholar

33 For a useful discussion of verbal styles and competence in the 1976 American debates, see Bitzer, Lloyd and Rueter, Theodore, Carter vs. Ford: The Counterfeit Debates of 1976 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1980).Google Scholar

34 Lanoue, David J., ‘Debates That Mattered: Voters' Reaction to the 1984 Canadian Leadership Debates’, Canadian Journal of Political Science, 24 (1991), 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35 The reason we run three separate equations here instead of specifying OPB, BTP and BTI in the same equation is the risk of collinearity. Specifically, since OPB = BTI + BTP, specifying all three in the same equation would create perfect multicollinearity.

36 See, for example, Stewart, Marianne C., ‘Campaign Context and Partisan Change in Anglo-American Electorates’ (paper presented at the Role of Partisanship workshop of the European Consortium for Political Research Joint Sessions, Limerick, 1992).Google Scholar

37 Because of the small number of cases, the residuals from each equation were closely scrutinized. No outliers were evident in any of the models and, although the data do not strictly constitute a time series, no evidence of serial correlation was found.

38 We should also note that when our incumbency variable is specified in our models without the party identification measure, it does achieve significance. However, our relevant debate strategy variables remain significant as well.

39 We also created a variable measuring candidate evaluations. This variable, too, is highly collinear with party identification. When this measure is specified alone or with party identification and incumbency, the appropriate debate strategy variables remain significant.

40 Geer, John G., ‘The Effects of Presidential Debates on the Electorate's Preference for Candidates’, American Politics Quarterly, 16 (1988), 486–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41 Kraus, , ed., The Great Debates; Carter vs. FordGoogle Scholar; Kraus, , ed., The Great Debates.Google Scholar

42 Miller, Arthur H., Wattenberg, Martin P. and Malanchuk, Oksana, ‘Schematic Assessments of Presidential Candidates’, American Political Science Review, 80 (1986), 521–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43 Schrott, , ‘Electoral Consequences of “Winning”’.Google Scholar